Bangalore District Court
And He Claims To Be Tried vs Only. As Such on 3 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 3rd Day of June 2019
Present: Sri.M.Mahesh Babu, B.A., LL.B.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.25370/2009
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 25370/2009
2. The date of commission 24112008 & 25112008
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant M.N.Belliappa s/o late
M.K.Nachappa, aged about 63
years r/at No.24, Gagan,
Athmananda Colony,
R.T.Nagara, Bangalore.
4. Name of the accused Udiyanda M.Muddaiah
s/o Medappa, aged about 60
years, r/at No.1264, 13th
Cross Road, Vishwabharathi
Housing Complex, 2nd Stage,
Girinagara, Bangalore.
5. The offence complained of U/s. 500 of IPC
or proved
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
2 C.C.No.25370/2009
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.255(2) Cr.P.C.
accused is convicted
8. Date of such order 03062019
For the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against accused for an offences Punishable U/Sec. 500 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
On 24112008 and 25112008 the accused has published defamatory statements against the complainant herein stating that the complainant being the President of Kodava Samaja has misappropriated the funds and created false bills and since from 1998 to 2006 lakhs of rupees were misappropriated by the complainant herein. Further, it is alleged that the accused has made further allegations against the complainant herein stating that the complainant indulged in groupisam and misappropriation and given out space on 3 C.C.No.25370/2009 low rent. Based on the above said allegations the respect towards the complainant has lowered in the society. The accused has intentionally made defamatory statements against the complainant herein. As such the complainant has prayed to take cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 500 of IPC.
3. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses this court has took cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 500 of IPC and case was registered against the accused for the offence punishable 500 of IPC.
4. After registering of case the summons was issued to the accused in pursuance of summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and got enlarged on bail and plea recorded the accused has denied the allegations made by the complainant and he claims to be tried.
4 C.C.No.25370/2009
5. In order to prove his case the complainant himself stepped into witness box and examined himself as PW1 and examined 5 witnesses as PW2 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P40 and closed his side. Per contra, in order to prove his case the accused stepped into witness box and examined himself as DW1 and closed his side and no documents have been exhibited.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. The point that would arise for my consideration in this case are as under:
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused caused publication of defamatory article on 24112008 in ESanje, on 25112008 in Udayavani, in TV9 TV Channel and on 25112008 in Times of India government employee as "Kodava Samaja Ex.Chief faces fraud charges"
misappropriation of funds, production of false bills 5 C.C.No.25370/2009 and misuse of education funds. A section of the Rs.75,000/ member Bangalore Kodava Samaja has alleged that M.N.Belliappa former president of the samaj, is guilt of all this from 1998 when Belliappa was appointed president till 2006, lakhs of rupees were misappropriated. Muddaiah said funds used for field Marshal K.M.Cariapa's Anniversary Celebrations were not properly accounted for. Belliappa is alleged to have said Rs.16 lakh had been saved and was used to help students in Kodagu, and that a hall would be et up in the field Marshal's name. Muddaiah said the accounts didn't reflect this till 2006 when the audit report said a ahll had been named after Cariappa further Belliappa indulged in groupisam, misappropriation, and giving out space on low rent. Muddaiah said Belliappa and others should resign. and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 500 of IPC?
2. What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under: 6 C.C.No.25370/2009
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: In the present case on hand, it is pertinent to note that for internal discussion the focal points for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the accused has made press conference against the complainant herein or not?
2. Whether in the said press conference the accused has made defamatory statements against the complainant or not?
10. While answering point No.1 now let us turn our attention to the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties. In the present case on hand, the complainant has taken contention that he is a responsible citizen having good reputation in the society and doing social work since from 7 C.C.No.25370/2009 many years, such being the case the accused who is running the Kannada weekly publication under the name "PASCHIMAGIRI VARTHE", in the name of his son, Dr.Madhu, on 09112001 has published a news item in editorial column made highly defamatory allegation against the complainant herein. The said paper has been marked as Ex.P1. I have gone through the recitals Ex.P1 nowhere in the said Ex.P1 it has been mentioned that the said paper has been run by the accused only. As such, the plea taken by the complainant that the accused is responsible for the publication of Ex.P1 has been ruled out.
11. The next question before the court is that whether the accused has published a pamphlet dated 24112007 wherein he has made some defamatory statements against the complainant or not. In the present case on hand, the said pamphlet has been marked at Ex.P2. I have gone through the 8 C.C.No.25370/2009 recitals of Ex.P2 wherein it is evident that it is the accused only who has made print the said pamphlet by mentioning his mobile number and land line number in the said pamphlet. Further on perusal of the recitals of Ex.P2 it has been specifically mentioned that during the year 1998 to 2006 the Management of Kodava Samaja has misappropriated the funds of the Kodava Samaja and they have committed the criminal breach of trust and etc. In the documents available on record it is evident that during the period 1998 to 2006 the present complainant was the President of the Kodava Samaja as such it can be seen that pointing out the complainant only the said defamatory statements have been made by the accused herein in the said pamphlet. Further, it is pertinent to note that during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that in the interest of members of Kodava Samaja, the accused has made said allegations in the hand bill in a good faith. 9 C.C.No.25370/2009
12. It is paramount fact to be considered that before making any allegations against the particular person or against any trust there should be a base for the said allegations. It is a matter on record that in the present case on hand, the complainant has got marked Ex.P3 which is a clarification given by the Management of Kodava Samaja, Bangalore, wherein they have denied the allegations made by the accused herein. If at all the allegations made by the accused is true and correct under those circumstances definitely the management of Kodava Samaja, Bangalore have joined the voice with accused herein. It is further paramount fact to note that the accused herein has not produced any documents to show that the complainant herein has misappropriated the funds of Kodava Samaja.
13. It is further pertinent to note that in the present case on hand, the accused on 24112008 has addressed a press note 10 C.C.No.25370/2009 in many local Kannada Newspaper as well as Times of India making false, frivolous, defamatory and reckless allegations against the complainant herein.
14. In order to prove the above said contention the complainant has got marked Ex.P4 to 6 which are the newspapers. On perusal of the same it can be seen that all the said newspapers have published in their news column stating that the accused herein has conducted press meet and wherein the accused has made allegation that since from the year 1998 to 2006 the complainant has misappropriated the lakhs of Rupees belongs to Kodava Samaja and further made allegation stating that the complainant has indulged in groupisam, misappropriation and other things.
15. On the other hand, in the present case on hand, the accused has taken the contention that he has not at all given the press note before the press club Bangalore. In order to 11 C.C.No.25370/2009 strengthen his contention he has relied upon Ex.P41 which is a schedule issued by the press club Bangalore dated 2411 2008 wherein it can be seen that at 11.00 to 11.20 a.m., time has been given for the present accused herein for press meet. The above schedule time i.e., 11.00 to 11.30 a.m., has been given to some other person to conduct press meet. Based on this document the accused has taken contention and the counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the accused has not at all given any press note on 24112008 hence, the question of accused making defamatory statement against the complainant herein does not arise.
16. In order to counter the above said contention, the complainant has got marked Ex.P42 which has been marked on confrontation through accused at the time of cross examination of accused i.e., DW1. Ex.P42 is a criminal petition No.327/2011 filed by the present accused herein 12 C.C.No.25370/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka praying to set aside the cognizance order taken by this court. The para 8 of Ex.P42 which was got marked on confrontation during the course of cross of DW1 the accused has pleaded as Ex.P42(a) which reads as follows:
"The petitioner submits that he also addressed a press conference in which he has distributed the pamphlet to the press persons about the irregularities committed by respondent while holding the post of President of the society. The said report of the press conference addressed by the petitioner was published in various newspapers."
17. On perusal of the above said admission made by the present accused only it can be seen that it is the accused only who has made the press conference against the complainant herein. As such my first focal point for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 13 C.C.No.25370/2009
18. The next focal point to be considered is that whether the said pamphlet dated 24112007 and the press conference dated 24112008 contains defamatory statements against the complainant herein or not. On perusal of Ex.P2 it can be seen that the accused referring the complainant's position as President stated that the complainant has not at all helped Kodava Educational Society. Further, stating that the Management of Kodava Samaja from the year 1998 to 2006 has not maintained proper audit. Further, it has been mentioned in the said Ex.P2 that the amount which was collected for celebration of Field Marshal Kariappa's Century celebration has also been misused.
19. It is a matter on record that to prove the above the said contention the accused has not submitted any materials before the court. It is further pertinent note 14 C.C.No.25370/2009 that as per Ex.P15 which is a press note dated 2211 2008 the accused went to press club on 24112008 claiming to be a senior leader of Kodava Samaja, Bangalore and in the press conference targeting the demolition of complainant's image and reputation. Further, in the said press note the accused has made generic allegations against the management of 1998 to 2006. Further, on perusal of press note it is further evident that the accused has specifically requested the members to carry out the report of his press conference that lead the publication of the defamatory against the complainant.
20. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the accused has not at all made any press conference making defamatory allegations against the complainant herein 15 C.C.No.25370/2009 with respect to this point is concerned already this court while referring to Ex.P42 at para 8 the accused himself has specifically admitted that he has made a press conference against the complainant herein. At this juncture it is better to reproduce the ingredients of the Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act which reads as follows:
Section 58: Facts admitted need not to be proved:
"No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings."
21. So, as per the provisions of Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act when the accused himself has admitted in P42 stating that he has made a press conference against the complainant herein. Under those circumstances, no much proof of evidence is requied to prove that it is the 16 C.C.No.25370/2009 accused only who has made defamatory allegations against the complainant herein which is the evident from Ex.P2, P4 to P6.
22. It is further pertinent to note that it is a matter on record that the accused has not putforth any materials before the court to show that he has made the press conference defamatory allegations against the complainant herein in a good faith. It is further pertinent to note that the accused has further failed to show the base for the making of defamatory statements against the complainant herein. Because the documents produced by the complainant as per Ex.P34 to 40 which are the audit report of statement of accounts clearly demonstrates that there was no misappropriation of funds by the Kodava Samaja till from the 1998 to 2002. When such being the case the accused cannot make any baseless allegations 17 C.C.No.25370/2009 against any person. Further in order to make any allegation against the person someone should have the base for the same. As earlier discussed above in the present case on hand the accused has not put forth any materials before the court to show any base by his defamatory statement which was made against the complainant herein.
23. It is paramount fact to note that the main allegation made by the accused herein in the press note against the complainant is that the complainant being the President Kodava Samaja has misappropriated the funds pertaining to the Field Marshal Kariappa birth Centuary Celebration. With respect to this point is concenred as earlier discussed above it is a matter on record that the accused has not produced any single piece of document in order to corroborate his version. Per contra, in the 18 C.C.No.25370/2009 present case on hand, the complainant has got marked Ex.P19 and P20 which are the audit report pertaining to the Field Marshal Kariappa's birth Centuary Celebration. On perusal of the above said audit report and above said ex.P19 and P20 coupled with the report pertaining to the Centuary Celebration of late Field Marshal Kariappa on 12061999 it is crystal clear that auditors have conducted the audit pertaining to the said celebration and they have not expressed any single opinion regrding the misappropriation of funds in the said function by the complainant herein. Such being the case it is apparent on record that the accused without any basis has made defamatory allegations against the complainant herein stating that the complainant has misappropriated the funds in the said function. Accordingly, it is crystal clear that the case of defamation against the complainant herein which was made by the accused herein. The one 19 C.C.No.25370/2009 more defamatory statement made by the accused herein against the complainant is that the complainant is involved in groupisam and other illegal activities. With respect this point is also concerned it is a matter on record that the accused has not lodged any complaint before the jurisdictional police station regarding the alleged illegal activities to be held by the present complainant herein. As earlier discussed above the accused has failed to putforth any evidence before this court in order to strengthen his allegations and further it is pertinent to note that even the accused has not taken any pain to examine any independent witnesses in order to prove his contention.
24. It is further paramount fact to note that in the present case on hand, the complainant has examined 6 witnesses as PW1 to 6 and all the witnesses who were 20 C.C.No.25370/2009 examined by the complainant have specifically deposed that the complainant has not misused any funds of Kodava Samaja and the complainant is done maximum social work to the society. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW1 to 6, audit report and other documents it is clearly demonstrates that the complainant has not misappropriated any funds of Kodava Smaja and he has not involved any groupisam or any illegal activities. When things are so the accused without any base and without any evidence has called the press meet and made defamatory statements and allegations against the complainant herein which is a clearly punishable u/s 499 of IPC which punishable u/s 500 of IPC.
25. As per the definition of Section 499 of IPC in the present case on hand the accused has made defamatory allegations 21 C.C.No.25370/2009 against the complainant herein knowing fully well that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant herein.
26. Accordingly the complainant has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 in the affirmative.
27. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable U/sec. 499 and 500 of IPC.
The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo SI for a period of one month.
22 C.C.No.25370/2009
Bail bonds of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled.
Judgment copies shall be given to the accused free of costs fourth with.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 3rd day of June 2019.) (M.Mahesh Babu) VIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
P.W.1 : M.N.Belliappa P.W.2 : M.M.Thimmaiah P.W.3 : I.G.Nanaiah P.W.4 : C.N.Ganesh P.W.5 : Vaman Vasudev Kamat (Discarded) P.W.6 : K.M.Appaiah
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of Paschimagiri Varthegalu Ex.P.2 : Pamphlet Ex.P.3 : Reply Ex.P.4 : ESanje(Kannada version statement) Ex.P.5 : Times of India (English version Statement 23 C.C.No.25370/2009 Ex.P6 : Times of India(Kannada Version statement Ex.P7 : Letter dt: 24012009 Ex.P8 : Original Memorandum and bye laws Ex.P9 : Certified copies of response to pamphlet Ex.P10 : Certified copy of request of accused Ex.P11 : C.C. of communication dt: 02122009 Ex.P12 : Press Note dt: 28112008 Ex.P13 : Certified copy of press note in Kannada Ex.P14 : Termination letter Ex.P15 : Press note dt: 22112008 Ex.P16 : NIL Ex.P17 : Communication dt: 29112008 Ex.P18 : Appeal with order dt: 01031999 Ex.P19 : Balance Sheet and Audit Report dt:51299 Ex.P20 : Receipts & Payments Ex.P21 : Report Ex.P22 : Minutes of monthly meeting letter dt:13/2/99 Ex.P23 : AG body meeting Ex.P24 : Receipts from 26061990 to 17042004 Ex.P25 to 27 : Photographs Ex.P28 & 29 : General Body meeting circular Ex.P30 : Indian Express Report dt: 29112008 Ex.P31 : Times of India report dt: 29112008 Ex.P32 : Udayawani report Ex.P33 : Statement Ex.P34 to 40 : Audit reports to 32nd to 36th and 41st and 42nd Annual General Body meeting of Kodava Samaja Ex.P41 : Press conference Ex.P42 : Certified copy of criminal petition Ex.P43 : Copy of writ petition Ex.P44 : Copy of order passed in writ petition 24 C.C.No.25370/2009 Ex.P45 : Copy of notice Ex.P46 : Postal Cover Ex.P47 : Copy of W.P.9976/2010 Ex.P48 : Copy of order passed in W.P.9976/10 Ex.P49 : Copy of W.A.5961/2009 Ex.P50 : Copy of Letter dt: 02012007 Ex.P51 : Copy of Reply Ex.P52 : 5th Annual Committee Meeting Invitation Ex.P53 : Paper Publication
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
DW1 U.M.Udhaya
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : Memorandum of Association of CIT Ex.D2 : Portion of objection at Page No.35 in Ex.P35 Ex.D3 : Portion of objection to funding Rs.16 lakhs to CIT at page No.36 in Ex.P35 Ex.D4 : Portion of objection to funding to Engineering college at Kodagu at page No.36 in Ex.P35 Ex.D5 : Portion of donating the amount to CIT Ex.D6 : Portion of not sanction of Rs.16 lakhs to Engineering Institution in General Body at page No.38 in Ex.P35 VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.25 C.C.No.25370/2009
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable U/sec. 499 and 500 of IPC.
The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo SI for a period of one month.
Bail bonds of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled.
Judgment copies shall be given to the accused free of costs fourth with.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.